Pope's piece of writing (and I call it that because I don't want to get into the classification) delivers some pretty tough criticism about criticism, yet it has meter and rhyme. Have you ever had an experience when you are watching a movie or looking at someone lecturing and your eyes glaze over and you're not seeing anything but what is in your mind's eye? Well, I felt like while I was reading this, my brain was glazed over and I was not comprehending anything. I was hearing what was in my ear's eye. Ok confusing, but does that make sense? For someone that has such intelligent, well-thought-out messages, the delivery fell flat, and I felt was highly impractical. I'm not saying that rhyme and meter in poem make it incomprehendable by any means, but I felt like I was reading forever just because I would have to keep going back over what I read.
Is this a plus for Pope's writing? Is the fact that it is getting extra attention good? Is my criticism bad according to Pope? I don't think what he's saying is off, but who am I to judge? - KLe-c Feb 26, 2008
I've read parts of Pope's essay on criticism, and it is a difficult read partially because of his use of meter and rhyme to convey his thoughts on criticism, which is one of the reasons why it is so hard to read at first because we are used to poems that generally are far shorter but also discuss perhaps more abstract ideas and thoughts. On the other hand here is a poem that discusses the nature of criticism; it is almost like reading Common Sense if it was written in a heroic couplet form. Also, I think that time in which Pope was around is also critical to what contributes to the difficulty. He was around during the 17th and 18th century: a time in which the people used different diction when speaking or writing, and sometimes is does not always carry over easily to our generation. Perhaps this is why you feel that this is so impractical because you are not used to his writing style. The same occurred when we read Shakespeare. At times we missed major points and jokes because we did not necessarily understand what he writing because of the different manner of writing. We happened to enjoy Shakespeare because the content was nowhere near as dry as Pope's.- MSu-c Feb 26, 2008
I found the poem/essay difficult to read as well. He uses lofty, classical speech, probably to get more credibility by saying "I can use this style and therefore I am smart and you should listen." As for what he was arguing in general, he spoke rather bluntly. He pretty much said that we should be slower to criticize poetry because we are not intelligent enough and because we have our own faults in our poetry. Harsh. He says that we need to figure out what's wrong with our stuff before we criticize everyone elses. But what if we don't write poetry? Does that mean that we are not able to judge other poems? I hardly think so. It is human nature for us to judge. As for the intelligence factor, I agree with him on that one. People look at a poem and criticize it because they are not able to understand it. The form is too complex, too whatever, there are too many words, blah blah blah. Poetry is difficult. No offense, but deal with it.- JHe-c Feb 26, 2008
I too found the reading very difficult which is not surprising since I can't really make sense of most poetry, but I thought overall it was very hypocritical. I understand that he doesn't like criticism, but what is he doing, as Kirsten said, "delivers some pretty tough criticism about criticism." Anyways I'm not sure if the subject matter that Pope is using is appropriate for the form he is using. Although I will say it is a valient effort and a good experiment (as my group's ballad project was), it's just not right. I do agree with his statements though because really our misunderstanding is nothing but our own fault, no matter how easy it is to blame the poet. As John said, we gotta deal with it, so Pope did well there. You know do I have the ability to assess what Pope does well and poorly? I mean it is his poem he can do whatever he wants. It's tough to know what to think because on one hand I want to complain about how difficult this poem is and criticize it, but on the other I agree with his thoughts on crticism so I know I shouldn't. Is critcism like a natural defense mechanism for us?- mka-c Feb 26, 2008
Yes, mka I do think criticism is like a natural defense mechanism we us, but I want to comment on something else. I think Pope made an extremely poor choice in making his essay a poem. It is asthetically beautiful, however, the purpose of an essay to argue something or to explain something. As we all mentioned, we had difficulties understanding his message because it was an essay and poem. Thus, I do not think that Pope was as effective as he would have been if he had just written in prose. In addition, by using this complicated poem in narrowed down his audience to an extremely slim number. So, his point will only be able to be understood by the elite readers so have much time to contemplate poetry. I think it was really cool that he wrote an essay in poetic form, but he could of saved his time and increased his supporters using prose. - kva-c Feb 27, 2008
I think criticism is a type of natural defense mechanism for us. In general, we can mask our insecurities by criticising others. However, in Pope's case I don't think this is true. He writes an essay that criticises critics, which I think is somehow wrong, but it isn't out of his insecurities. He has valid points to say, but the majority of them feel like an attack on those who judge poetry. I think this element of criticism can be applied to why he wrote this essay in style of a poem. Maybe he wrote as a poem to kind of prove that he could write. He states that only good writers could be good critics. In this case, by proving he is a good poet, he is giving himself the right to criticize others. The other logical explanations I can come up with is that it better allowed him to use witty phrases and play with wording. We also said the poetry form contributed to a rhythmic, boring reading of this poem. But how do we know this would be more captivating if writen in prose. -
kec-c
kec-c 11 minutes ago
Yea, I don't really know about this "essay". Pope is talking about criticism and writing and I think he delivers some good messages if you can get past the rhyming endlines, the lofty language, and the general dazedness that accompanies this essay within the first couple lines. I think it would be a lot easier if it were written like a normal essay without rhyming or anything. I know the heroic form is seen as a high form, and that it was used to translate epic poems and other high end work, but this seems unnatural. Maybe Pope is just exercising his "poetic license" and thinking outside the box in writing an essay that's really a poem, but I don't think this is really how the heroic form was meant to be used. He makes good points, but the sing-songy tone of the poem with its rhyming lines takes away from the cutting wit that Pope delivers. I missed a lot of his points because I got distracted by the end lines and the rhythm of the poem; it was more of a listening experience than an understanding experience. ANd that's fine with poetry, but I'm pretty sure that's not the effect Pope wanted to have. - dru-c Feb 27, 2008
What John says is mostly correct, and Pope's argument would be about as simple as John put it, which wouldn't have much effect or be convincing at all. Because it is an essay AND a poem, he is able to use wit humor and complex language to convey a point to a reader who will have to study the lines to ascertain their meaning, which is his intention. Because it is witty, we are inclined to read and study on, and it also lends more credibility to his argument. As John said, it is human nature for us to judge, which Pope clearly recognizes. However, it is not human nature to put their thoughts to writing and criticise in the form of expression that could poison the minds of other potential readers. As I stated before, the difficulty is an effect Pope intends to use. Think about it, do you learn something easier if you read it once, or if you read it three times, even if you don't understand it the first? Clearly three times is better, which is the idea that Pope brilliantly uses. - PSp-c
Personally, I found Pope's way of combining a poem and an essay absolutely fascinating. I think it was an extremely creative way to get a clear point across while still holding the interest of the reader. As we all know, it's often difficult to read through an entire essay without having your mind wander to something else for a bit, but Pope's poem/essay used the creative language of poetry to portray a message that could potentially bore the reader if it were made into a plain essay form. And DRu, I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that they rhyming lines took away from the general wit that Pope was trying to get across. I thought the rhyming made the witty nature of the essay all the more prominent and clever. I never became distracted by the end lines; in fact, I believe they held my interest for much longer than an essay could have. - MRo-c Feb 27, 2008
Maybe in the context of the times, Pope's piece was more readable and understandable; however, in today's terms, the style he used is only a hinderance to the message that he wants to get across. Way back in the early 18th century, when usually only the most scholarly could read and write, using this style for a piece of criticism was probably smart because it would both be understood by the intellectual crowd, and it would set itself apart from the more conventional pieces of criticism. With that said, in today's standards, it is highly impractical to write a piece intended for the public with such verbose vocabulary and "interesting" sentence structure. Not to toot my own horn, but everyone in AP English is probably in the upper percentile intelligence-wise at the entire student body at Carmel Catholic; however, no one really had a grasp on the poem without Br. Tom guiding us through it. If we cannot understand it, the fact is that the majority of people probably cannot understand it, and if Pope wanted to reach an audience of any substantial size among the educated, then this reality is not positive. - dsU-c Feb 27, 2008
Like, dsu, I contributed the syntax and general style of writing to the fact that he wrote it in 18th century for a particular audience. When we started to go over it in class today, one question Br Tom put forth for us to ponder was to think about if/how the heroic couplet added to what Pope was saying. I am sure it does, or Pope would not have written it that way. But the only problem is, I (and apperenly all of you) can hardly understand what he is saying, but I am sure his reasoning is explained somehow in his piece. - MBe-c Feb 27, 2008
My main difficulty with this poem/essay was just the differences in terminology and the references he made to ancient philosophers or artists that I was unfamiliar with, flowing into our last essay "Difficulty in Poetry". I found it especially interesting that Pope chose to write a poem about critics who criticize poetry, though he may have been referring to critics in general. He seems to be basically saying, "Ok, now criticize this." His audience is these critics, who should (if they are worthy of their names) be able to decipher these references and understand what Pope is saying. Overall, I understood his basic argument but there were most likely many nuances and in-between-the-lines statements that I missed. While I would normally not think of a poem as an essay, I can completely understand how this poem is one. It's another one of those expanding pieces, like the prosy poetry piece we read recently. - AHa-c Feb 27, 2008
I actually really like Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism" (at least what I've read of it so far). One of the first points someone made in class was that the fact that it is quite literally not an essay, but rather a poem. Brother Tom mentioned that we have a set vision in our minds of what an essay consists of: words, sentences, paragraphs...but certainly not rhymed couplets, right? Some say that the structure of Pope's essay takes away from his message, but I find that it enhances it. How many true essays (pages of paragraphs) have we read? Quite a few. And how many stick out in our minds. At least to me, not many. Because of their similar form (seemingly going on for pages on end), essays tend to blur together in my mind. Perhaps the particular writing style can set it apart from the rest; in Pope's case, his poetic structure (rhyme and syntax) and wit set him apart from other essays I have read. Plus, isn't one of the major perks of an essay (or any piece of writing) to stand out from the rest? Pope certain stands out to me. - AWr-c Feb 27, 2008
We talked about this a little bit in class, and what I found to be the hardest part was the fact that it was so long. Most poems are in little chunks, and you can look at it for a while, and get the whole picture. This poem, on the other hand, with a whopping 744 lines can hardly be read in this way. When I took it stanza by stanza I could understand what he was saying, at least for the most part, but as for the entire first part, I couldn't read the whole thing without getting lost. I think the problem is that we want to read it like we would read a paragraph out of a book, and it just doesn't work that way. Reading poems can be time consuming, but reading a poem like this and actually understanding it could take hours and hours. What is interesting is that such a long poem is made up of such short pieces as couplets. In a way this makes it easier because there are no lengthy sentences where ideas get lost; it makes it much more concise. But at the same time, it also makes it harder because the couplets are written with the kind of poetically ambiguous language. It's difficult, that's for sure, but I think that that's mostly attributed to the broad focus of the poem. - LDo-c Feb 28, 2008
I agree with dsu when he says that the poem is difficult, but I disagree with the statement that it is a hinderance to the message he want's to get across to us. Personally, difficulty was a tool he used to force the reader to look more closely at what he was saying. Like awr said, it was memorable because it was a poem. Due to its difficulty, the reader was forced to read it over two or three more times, which is two or three more times more than if it had been a simple, easy to understand essay. Furthermore, the reader is inclined to deal with this burdensome rereading due to the wit and humor the poem possesses, a trait that could not have had the same effect in a usual essay style. I remind you that the main points of his essay are quite simple; those who aren't fit to criticise should not do so. It being a poem and difficult affords it a less direct style that actually strengthens his point because he includes many witty metaphors, allusions, and similes. Finally, it actually contributes to the comprehension of his argument because the reader is given many more angles and is much more likely to buy into what he is saying. - PSp-c
I do not know if this post really fits well here, but I had a comment to make on Pope's essay and it has to do with a possible criticism of him:
I finished reading the essaypoem and thought about the overall impact and implications of Pope's work. The idea came to me that Pope is requiring perfection of all writers. Though I personally thought his work well-written, he really does criticize nearly everyone in the poetical, prose, and critical worlds -- if that makes sense. Even if one does attain the perfection of knowledge that Pope discusses and thinks necessary, they still must not take credit for it and constantly be questioning themselves. Sure, be more humble than haughty, but I thought this to be pretty harsh.
On the other hand, I noticed as I was thinking about the work as the whole that Pope does have a lot of good to say, as well. (Basically, this is what makes it rather difficult to judge the work.) In the last Part specifically, he says, "But you, with pleasure own your errors past, And make each day a critic on the last" (570-1). Although this can be considered harsh as I said, I suppose all he is ultimately saying is to be real. Take responsibility for you work. Shortly after, he affirms this when he writes, "Fear not the anger of the wise to raise; Those best can bear reproof, who merit praise" (582-3). What I understood from this is if you are in the right, then that is all that is important in the end ~ which is good advice.- sfa-c Mar 1, 2008
I have to disagree. Pope does not demand perfection from all poets (or even critics for that matter). Instead, he wants them to recognize that they are not perfect and maybe that they cannot ever be perfect. Many times Pope tells us (and I'm paraphrasing) that we have to recognize what we know and recognize what we don't know. He comments that we have to realize our own flaws. Pope is not bashing the imperfect poet or critic. Rather he is bashing the arrogant. This brings up an interesting point that is debated in many of the essay forums. Isn't Pope himself arrogant for saying this? Who is he to be so above all other poets and critics? (For I believe that in writing this piece, Pope is both a poet and a critic at the same time.) I can see where parts of Pope's works can be considered a bit harsh, as you mentioned, but overall, I thought the piece was refreshing true. We all know people who think they know everything, and to put it simply, those people are pretty annoying. Rather, those who are obviously intelligent yet still humble are often more likeable. I thought it was interesting how much of Pope's meaning still holds true for today. - Kho-c Mar 6, 2008
I really like the connection kho made about Pope's writing have truth. That truth not only involves the truths of writing, but the truths of life as well. I always enjoy when I get a message behind an author's writing. Those messages are what stick with me about the writing, not necessarily every single detail that was said. In Pope's case he was expressing his views on poetry and I know that I felt I was being looked down upon as a reader of poetry; that I was being scolded. But at the same time his writing could be seen as an awakening for readers. He might be telling us that we just need to understand that poetry is different; that our personal flaws include not accepting things that aren't standard to the average person. For most poetry isn't their top choice for light reading and they stereotype it is flowery and and not as enjoyable to read as a novel would be. Those people honestly don't give it a shot. I know that I am personally working on getting rid of that stereotype when it comes to when I read poetry. Pope's "arrogance" may be what we need in order to get over the differences between poetry and regular writing; one of our flaws can be eliminated by giving things a chance.- aja-c Mar 13, 2008
Is this a plus for Pope's writing? Is the fact that it is getting extra attention good? Is my criticism bad according to Pope? I don't think what he's saying is off, but who am I to judge? -
I've read parts of Pope's essay on criticism, and it is a difficult read partially because of his use of meter and rhyme to convey his thoughts on criticism, which is one of the reasons why it is so hard to read at first because we are used to poems that generally are far shorter but also discuss perhaps more abstract ideas and thoughts. On the other hand here is a poem that discusses the nature of criticism; it is almost like reading Common Sense if it was written in a heroic couplet form. Also, I think that time in which Pope was around is also critical to what contributes to the difficulty. He was around during the 17th and 18th century: a time in which the people used different diction when speaking or writing, and sometimes is does not always carry over easily to our generation. Perhaps this is why you feel that this is so impractical because you are not used to his writing style. The same occurred when we read Shakespeare. At times we missed major points and jokes because we did not necessarily understand what he writing because of the different manner of writing. We happened to enjoy Shakespeare because the content was nowhere near as dry as Pope's.-
I found the poem/essay difficult to read as well. He uses lofty, classical speech, probably to get more credibility by saying "I can use this style and therefore I am smart and you should listen." As for what he was arguing in general, he spoke rather bluntly. He pretty much said that we should be slower to criticize poetry because we are not intelligent enough and because we have our own faults in our poetry. Harsh. He says that we need to figure out what's wrong with our stuff before we criticize everyone elses. But what if we don't write poetry? Does that mean that we are not able to judge other poems? I hardly think so. It is human nature for us to judge. As for the intelligence factor, I agree with him on that one. People look at a poem and criticize it because they are not able to understand it. The form is too complex, too whatever, there are too many words, blah blah blah. Poetry is difficult. No offense, but deal with it.-
I too found the reading very difficult which is not surprising since I can't really make sense of most poetry, but I thought overall it was very hypocritical. I understand that he doesn't like criticism, but what is he doing, as Kirsten said, "delivers some pretty tough criticism about criticism." Anyways I'm not sure if the subject matter that Pope is using is appropriate for the form he is using. Although I will say it is a valient effort and a good experiment (as my group's ballad project was), it's just not right. I do agree with his statements though because really our misunderstanding is nothing but our own fault, no matter how easy it is to blame the poet. As John said, we gotta deal with it, so Pope did well there. You know do I have the ability to assess what Pope does well and poorly? I mean it is his poem he can do whatever he wants. It's tough to know what to think because on one hand I want to complain about how difficult this poem is and criticize it, but on the other I agree with his thoughts on crticism so I know I shouldn't. Is critcism like a natural defense mechanism for us?-
Yes, mka I do think criticism is like a natural defense mechanism we us, but I want to comment on something else. I think Pope made an extremely poor choice in making his essay a poem. It is asthetically beautiful, however, the purpose of an essay to argue something or to explain something. As we all mentioned, we had difficulties understanding his message because it was an essay and poem. Thus, I do not think that Pope was as effective as he would have been if he had just written in prose. In addition, by using this complicated poem in narrowed down his audience to an extremely slim number. So, his point will only be able to be understood by the elite readers so have much time to contemplate poetry. I think it was really cool that he wrote an essay in poetic form, but he could of saved his time and increased his supporters using prose.
-
I think criticism is a type of natural defense mechanism for us. In general, we can mask our insecurities by criticising others. However, in Pope's case I don't think this is true. He writes an essay that criticises critics, which I think is somehow wrong, but it isn't out of his insecurities. He has valid points to say, but the majority of them feel like an attack on those who judge poetry. I think this element of criticism can be applied to why he wrote this essay in style of a poem. Maybe he wrote as a poem to kind of prove that he could write. He states that only good writers could be good critics. In this case, by proving he is a good poet, he is giving himself the right to criticize others. The other logical explanations I can come up with is that it better allowed him to use witty phrases and play with wording. We also said the poetry form contributed to a rhythmic, boring reading of this poem. But how do we know this would be more captivating if writen in prose. -
kec-c 11 minutes ago
Yea, I don't really know about this "essay". Pope is talking about criticism and writing and I think he delivers some good messages if you can get past the rhyming endlines, the lofty language, and the general dazedness that accompanies this essay within the first couple lines. I think it would be a lot easier if it were written like a normal essay without rhyming or anything. I know the heroic form is seen as a high form, and that it was used to translate epic poems and other high end work, but this seems unnatural. Maybe Pope is just exercising his "poetic license" and thinking outside the box in writing an essay that's really a poem, but I don't think this is really how the heroic form was meant to be used. He makes good points, but the sing-songy tone of the poem with its rhyming lines takes away from the cutting wit that Pope delivers. I missed a lot of his points because I got distracted by the end lines and the rhythm of the poem; it was more of a listening experience than an understanding experience. ANd that's fine with poetry, but I'm pretty sure that's not the effect Pope wanted to have. -
What John says is mostly correct, and Pope's argument would be about as simple as John put it, which wouldn't have much effect or be convincing at all. Because it is an essay AND a poem, he is able to use wit humor and complex language to convey a point to a reader who will have to study the lines to ascertain their meaning, which is his intention. Because it is witty, we are inclined to read and study on, and it also lends more credibility to his argument. As John said, it is human nature for us to judge, which Pope clearly recognizes. However, it is not human nature to put their thoughts to writing and criticise in the form of expression that could poison the minds of other potential readers. As I stated before, the difficulty is an effect Pope intends to use. Think about it, do you learn something easier if you read it once, or if you read it three times, even if you don't understand it the first? Clearly three times is better, which is the idea that Pope brilliantly uses. -
Personally, I found Pope's way of combining a poem and an essay absolutely fascinating. I think it was an extremely creative way to get a clear point across while still holding the interest of the reader. As we all know, it's often difficult to read through an entire essay without having your mind wander to something else for a bit, but Pope's poem/essay used the creative language of poetry to portray a message that could potentially bore the reader if it were made into a plain essay form. And DRu, I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that they rhyming lines took away from the general wit that Pope was trying to get across. I thought the rhyming made the witty nature of the essay all the more prominent and clever. I never became distracted by the end lines; in fact, I believe they held my interest for much longer than an essay could have.
-
Maybe in the context of the times, Pope's piece was more readable and understandable; however, in today's terms, the style he used is only a hinderance to the message that he wants to get across. Way back in the early 18th century, when usually only the most scholarly could read and write, using this style for a piece of criticism was probably smart because it would both be understood by the intellectual crowd, and it would set itself apart from the more conventional pieces of criticism. With that said, in today's standards, it is highly impractical to write a piece intended for the public with such verbose vocabulary and "interesting" sentence structure. Not to toot my own horn, but everyone in AP English is probably in the upper percentile intelligence-wise at the entire student body at Carmel Catholic; however, no one really had a grasp on the poem without Br. Tom guiding us through it. If we cannot understand it, the fact is that the majority of people probably cannot understand it, and if Pope wanted to reach an audience of any substantial size among the educated, then this reality is not positive.
-
Like, dsu, I contributed the syntax and general style of writing to the fact that he wrote it in 18th century for a particular audience. When we started to go over it in class today, one question Br Tom put forth for us to ponder was to think about if/how the heroic couplet added to what Pope was saying. I am sure it does, or Pope would not have written it that way. But the only problem is, I (and apperenly all of you) can hardly understand what he is saying, but I am sure his reasoning is explained somehow in his piece.
-
My main difficulty with this poem/essay was just the differences in terminology and the references he made to ancient philosophers or artists that I was unfamiliar with, flowing into our last essay "Difficulty in Poetry". I found it especially interesting that Pope chose to write a poem about critics who criticize poetry, though he may have been referring to critics in general. He seems to be basically saying, "Ok, now criticize this." His audience is these critics, who should (if they are worthy of their names) be able to decipher these references and understand what Pope is saying. Overall, I understood his basic argument but there were most likely many nuances and in-between-the-lines statements that I missed. While I would normally not think of a poem as an essay, I can completely understand how this poem is one. It's another one of those expanding pieces, like the prosy poetry piece we read recently. -
I actually really like Alexander Pope's "Essay on Criticism" (at least what I've read of it so far). One of the first points someone made in class was that the fact that it is quite literally not an essay, but rather a poem. Brother Tom mentioned that we have a set vision in our minds of what an essay consists of: words, sentences, paragraphs...but certainly not rhymed couplets, right? Some say that the structure of Pope's essay takes away from his message, but I find that it enhances it. How many true essays (pages of paragraphs) have we read? Quite a few. And how many stick out in our minds. At least to me, not many. Because of their similar form (seemingly going on for pages on end), essays tend to blur together in my mind. Perhaps the particular writing style can set it apart from the rest; in Pope's case, his poetic structure (rhyme and syntax) and wit set him apart from other essays I have read. Plus, isn't one of the major perks of an essay (or any piece of writing) to stand out from the rest? Pope certain stands out to me. -
We talked about this a little bit in class, and what I found to be the hardest part was the fact that it was so long. Most poems are in little chunks, and you can look at it for a while, and get the whole picture. This poem, on the other hand, with a whopping 744 lines can hardly be read in this way. When I took it stanza by stanza I could understand what he was saying, at least for the most part, but as for the entire first part, I couldn't read the whole thing without getting lost. I think the problem is that we want to read it like we would read a paragraph out of a book, and it just doesn't work that way. Reading poems can be time consuming, but reading a poem like this and actually understanding it could take hours and hours. What is interesting is that such a long poem is made up of such short pieces as couplets. In a way this makes it easier because there are no lengthy sentences where ideas get lost; it makes it much more concise. But at the same time, it also makes it harder because the couplets are written with the kind of poetically ambiguous language. It's difficult, that's for sure, but I think that that's mostly attributed to the broad focus of the poem.
-
I agree with dsu when he says that the poem is difficult, but I disagree with the statement that it is a hinderance to the message he want's to get across to us. Personally, difficulty was a tool he used to force the reader to look more closely at what he was saying. Like awr said, it was memorable because it was a poem. Due to its difficulty, the reader was forced to read it over two or three more times, which is two or three more times more than if it had been a simple, easy to understand essay. Furthermore, the reader is inclined to deal with this burdensome rereading due to the wit and humor the poem possesses, a trait that could not have had the same effect in a usual essay style. I remind you that the main points of his essay are quite simple; those who aren't fit to criticise should not do so. It being a poem and difficult affords it a less direct style that actually strengthens his point because he includes many witty metaphors, allusions, and similes. Finally, it actually contributes to the comprehension of his argument because the reader is given many more angles and is much more likely to buy into what he is saying. -
I do not know if this post really fits well here, but I had a comment to make on Pope's essay and it has to do with a possible criticism of him:
I finished reading the essaypoem and thought about the overall impact and implications of Pope's work. The idea came to me that Pope is requiring perfection of all writers. Though I personally thought his work well-written, he really does criticize nearly everyone in the poetical, prose, and critical worlds -- if that makes sense. Even if one does attain the perfection of knowledge that Pope discusses and thinks necessary, they still must not take credit for it and constantly be questioning themselves. Sure, be more humble than haughty, but I thought this to be pretty harsh.
On the other hand, I noticed as I was thinking about the work as the whole that Pope does have a lot of good to say, as well. (Basically, this is what makes it rather difficult to judge the work.) In the last Part specifically, he says, "But you, with pleasure own your errors past, And make each day a critic on the last" (570-1). Although this can be considered harsh as I said, I suppose all he is ultimately saying is to be real. Take responsibility for you work. Shortly after, he affirms this when he writes, "Fear not the anger of the wise to raise; Those best can bear reproof, who merit praise" (582-3). What I understood from this is if you are in the right, then that is all that is important in the end ~ which is good advice.-
I have to disagree. Pope does not demand perfection from all poets (or even critics for that matter). Instead, he wants them to recognize that they are not perfect and maybe that they cannot ever be perfect. Many times Pope tells us (and I'm paraphrasing) that we have to recognize what we know and recognize what we don't know. He comments that we have to realize our own flaws. Pope is not bashing the imperfect poet or critic. Rather he is bashing the arrogant. This brings up an interesting point that is debated in many of the essay forums. Isn't Pope himself arrogant for saying this? Who is he to be so above all other poets and critics? (For I believe that in writing this piece, Pope is both a poet and a critic at the same time.) I can see where parts of Pope's works can be considered a bit harsh, as you mentioned, but overall, I thought the piece was refreshing true. We all know people who think they know everything, and to put it simply, those people are pretty annoying. Rather, those who are obviously intelligent yet still humble are often more likeable. I thought it was interesting how much of Pope's meaning still holds true for today. -
I really like the connection kho made about Pope's writing have truth. That truth not only involves the truths of writing, but the truths of life as well. I always enjoy when I get a message behind an author's writing. Those messages are what stick with me about the writing, not necessarily every single detail that was said. In Pope's case he was expressing his views on poetry and I know that I felt I was being looked down upon as a reader of poetry; that I was being scolded. But at the same time his writing could be seen as an awakening for readers. He might be telling us that we just need to understand that poetry is different; that our personal flaws include not accepting things that aren't standard to the average person. For most poetry isn't their top choice for light reading and they stereotype it is flowery and and not as enjoyable to read as a novel would be. Those people honestly don't give it a shot. I know that I am personally working on getting rid of that stereotype when it comes to when I read poetry. Pope's "arrogance" may be what we need in order to get over the differences between poetry and regular writing; one of our flaws can be eliminated by giving things a chance.-